The Value of Diversity in Cognitive Science

Abstract

A recent article (Núñez et al., 2019) claims that cognitive science, while starting off as a multidisciplinary enterprise, has “failed to transition to a mature inter‐disciplinary coherent field.” Two indicators reported in support of this claim target one of the two journals of the Cognitive Science Society, Cognitive Science, depicting cognitive science as an increasingly monodisciplinary subfield which is dominated by psychology. With a focus on the society's other journal, Topics in Cognitive Science, the present commentary reveals a greater degree of interdisciplinarity and discusses the relative values of diversity and integration for the field.

For the Sciences They Are A‐Changin’: A Response to Commentaries on Núñez et al.’s (2019) “What Happened to Cognitive Science?”

“…Gentner (2019) argues (citing recent personal communication with Don Norman and Allan Collins) that the establishment of cognitive science as a new field did not have the intention of achieving cohesiveness and integration. We strongly disagree—as apparently do various other commentators (e.g., Bender, 2019; French, 2019; Goel, 2019) who mention cognitive science’s goal of cohesion and integration in their articles.…”

“…As he put it, “while scientometricians can objectively and dispassionately articulate the case that cognitive science has not matured into a coherent disciplinary field … we who consider ourselves cognitive scientists cannot help but receive this news with emotional reactions ranging across denial, defensiveness, frustration, and dejection” (p. 903). But as Bender (2019), referring to our study, stated, “by and large, the data speaks for itself” (p. 854). As scientists, we must learn to value data, to take them seriously, and to make them transparent and public.…”

“…We deliberately did not use the term “failure” broadly, or “death,” “obituary,” and “autopsy” (Broude et al, 2019, p. 864). Instead, as Bender (2019) acknowledges, we used the term “failure” specifically to refer to a failure to transition from a multidisciplinary to a cohesive, integrated interdisciplinary endeavor (Núñez et al, 2019, pp. 782, 785, 789), and a failure to generate a successful research program in the Lakatosian sense (Núñez et al, 2019, pp.…”

“…Gentner writes that “cognitive science is and should be pluralistic” (2019, p. 884), and that “pluralism should be celebrated and preserved” (p. 890). Bender (2019) stresses the value of diversity, and Broude et al (2019) express that “multiplicity of frameworks [is] a sign of vigorous life” (p. 865). Overall, authors value “cross‐pollination of ideas” (McShane et al, 2019, p. 917), cross‐fertilization (Bender, 2019; Goldstone, 2019), and multidisciplinarity as a goal in cognitive science (Gray, 2019).…”

“…Self‐examinations, however, are often imbued with passion, emotional reactions, and identity issues. To minimize these subjective loads, we specifically designed our evaluation to be maximally based on on‐the‐ground empirical data, instead of personal beliefs, wishful thinking, strategic and prescriptive considerations, or by philosophical pre‐conceptions—something that a few commentators appreciated (Bender, 2019) and even considered “a major service for the cognitive science community” (Goel, 2019, p. 893).…”